This briefing updates the July 2016 report ‘Border Wars: the arms dealers profiting from Europe’s refugee tragedy’ . It shows that the European policy response to the refugee tragedy continues to provide a booming border security market for Europe’s arms and security firms, some of whom are involved in selling arms to the Middle East and North Africa and all of whom encourage European policies focused on keeping refugees out. It’s a win-win for the security corporations, but the cost is a deadly toll for migrants forced into ever more dangerous routes as they flee wars, conflict and oppression.
Armed drones have created a top-down view of the world, in which military officials and politicians assert an ideology of inherent superiority over subjugated, racialised people — or even dehumanised non-people — far beneath the drone's gaze. But as the technology becomes cheaper and accessible, activists are starting to use drones to turn the gaze back on the oppressors.
Terwijl tienduizenden vluchtelingen om zijn gekomen op de vlucht van geweld en ontberingen naar Europa, is er een groep die grof geld verdient. Dit rapport onthult de militaire en beveiligingsbedrijven die profiteren van de tragedie. Die contracten hebben gewonnen om materieel te leveren voor grenswachten, surveillancetechnologie om grenzen te monitoren en de IT-infrastructuur om migratiestromen te volgen.
While tens of thousands of refugees have died fleeing terrible violence and hardship to get to Europe, not everyone has lost out. This report exposes the military and security companies that have profited from the tragedy, winning contracts to provide the equipment to border guards, the surveillance technology to monitor frontiers, and the IT infrastructure to track population movements.
Amongst the big companies using the Dutch evasion routes are a large number of arms manufacturers and major international defence companies. Their almost empty offices or even only mailboxes in the Netherlands gives them the legal possibility pay as little tax as possible with all available legal tricks.
Ben Hayes, Gavin Sullivan, Louise Boon-Kuo, Vicki Sentas
16 February 2015
For those interested in peace and the non-violent resolution of conflict the prognosis is not good. Not just because the war on terror keeps producing enemies with whom, it is said, there is no negotiating, but because the legal and political framework it has engendered has transformed the way in which political violence and armed conflict is understood and managed.
It is time for a closer look at the self-serving claim by nuclear weapons states that one of the greatest dangers is that of nuclear weapons being built or falling into the hands of ‘terrorist groups’.
Structural circumstances of deprivation and criminalization facing African-Americans and the racialized perceptions of criminality appear to be some of the salient features that recently led to a young black teenager being killed by neighborhood watch patrolman George Zimmerman.
Making banks and non-profits liable for the acts and social networks of their customers and beneficiaries while holding charities and CSOs responsible for the ‘extremist’ views and actions of their associates stifles freedom of association and expression and promotes self-censorship.